Tag Archives: Mark Lerner

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Live with Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen 6-8 PM Central – International Biometric ID for All if Immigration Reform Bill Passes

Listen Live-LogosRadioNetwork.comclick ‘Listen’ then choose your Internet speed. Logos Radio Network is a listener supported, free speech radio network and your contributions are vital but you do not have to be a subscriber in order to hear the show.

Mark Lerner is the co-founder of The Constitutional Alliance, and the nation’s leading expert on biometrics and the Real ID Act. He will tell us exactly what is and isn’t in the bill and what it all means for us. Don’t miss this opportunity to get the straight truth about S.744!

Howard and I will also be discussing a variety of important topics and taking your calls.

iTunes-AxXiom For Liberty and other great Logos Radio Network shows can be accessed by iPhone and iPad on iTunes! Just search iTunes for “AxXiom For Liberty” or “Logos Radio Network”

************************************

Your photo in your state driver’s license or ID card IS a Biometric

Mark Lerner explains:

Biometric is defined as: Measurements of the body. There are both physiological and behavioral biometrics. For the sake of this document the focus will be on facial recognition and photographs.

There has been a great deal of conversation and equal amount of confusion about whether a photograph of an individual is a biometric. The answer is “yes”. Whether the photograph is an analog (old Polaroid photos) or a digital photograph, a photograph is a biometric. The question becomes why are digital facial images/photographs now used instead of the older analog photos that were used on driver’s licenses and other identification documents? The simple answer is the accuracy of the matching or comparison between one photograph and another is greatly increased when working with digital facial images.

One way to examine the question of whether a photograph is a biometric is by looking at photographs and fingerprints. It is widely accepted to the point of being undisputed, that a fingerprint is a biometric. Consider that when a person places a finger on a ink pad and then places that same finger on a piece of paper, the result is a fingerprint on the piece of paper. Now let’s look at a photograph. The photograph of a person’s face the equivalent of fingerprint, only the photograph is a representation of a person’s face instead of their finger tip.

Just as there are fingerprints that are not of sufficient quality to allow for computer automated comparisons, the same is true of photographs. It is for this reason that we see standards for the collection of both fingerprints and photographs. These “standards” are the minimum acceptable standards for the computer automated analysis/comparison.

The question of whether a photograph is in itself a biometric is especially important today because of the use of facial recognition software. Facial recognition (software) in its simplest terms is described as follows:

Facial recognition systems are computer-based security systems that are able to automatically detect and identify human faces. These systems depend on a recognition algorithm, such as eigenface or the hidden Markov model. The first step for a facial recognition system is to recognize a human face and extract it fro the rest of the scene. Next, the system measures nodal points on the face, such as the distance between the eyes, the shape of the cheekbones and other distinguishable features. These nodal points are then compared to the nodal points computed from a database of pictures in order to find a match. Obviously, such a system is limited based on the angle of the face captured and the lighting conditions present. New technologies are currently in development to create three-dimensional models of a person’s face based on a digital photograph in order to create more nodal points for comparison. However, such technology is inherently susceptible to error given that the computer is extrapolating a three-dimensional model from a two-dimensional photograph. http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/

Today in the United States and in other countries there has been a great deal of discussion about “facial recognition” in particular and more generally “surveillance”.

It is not widely known that all states in the United States are “capturing” a digital facial image/photograph that is facial recognition compatible. Real ID compliant and non-Real ID compliant states use the same standard for the digital facial image/photograph capture. Every state works with AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators).

AAMVA has adopted the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standard that is required by the Real ID Act (page 68, footnote 17, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Real ID Act 2005). In addition, the vendors who have been awarded state driver’s license contracts have adopted the same standard as called for in the Real ID Act 2005.

The following is the wording that articulates the standard for AAMVA, the vendors who have been awarded state driver’s license contracts and the Real ID Act 2005. This wording is taken from page 68, footnote 17 of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for the Real ID Act 2005.

In conclusion, there should no longer be a question in anyone’s mind that the photographs of a person’s face which are contained in every respective state Department of Motor Vehicle photo database is a biometric.

But wait! There’s more. . .I sometimes feel like I am belaboring the point but it seems to me the distinction between a national and INTERnational biometric identity system is a very important one.

Study that graphic up there. It is the simple three step recipe for a single, global biometric identification system. Read this post then look at it again and see if you can grokk what I’m telling you.

The federal Real ID Act of 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use international standards on state driver’s licenses and ID cards. You may remeber that at least 25 states said no to Real ID by passing either a law or a resolution against the implementation of the Real ID Act. Nevertheless, Real ID has continued to be implemented in most states to various degrees.

“By the deadline of January 13, 2013, most states will be substantially or materially or fully compliant with REAL ID” —Janice Kephart, Feb. 2012

In case you missed it, now, when you apply for a state driver’s license, a state identification card or any other form of government issued photo ID really, you are having your facial biometrics captured by a high resolution photograph. High resolution digital cameras capture, map, digitize and database our facial features for the purpose of use by facial recognition technology.

Facial recognition technology enables remote identification and tracking through networked camera systems without our knowledge or consent. As a matter of fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice because it can be used to identify and investigate us at-a-distance without our knowledge or consent.

Pay close attention here: This digital image on your state driver’s license or ID card is, by definition, a biometric.

The standard specified in the Real ID regulations for your state driver’s license and ID cards ensures that the digital facial image is facial recognition compatible. That standard is the adopted standard of the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the UN.

International standards exist for one purpose; to enable the global sharing of that information.

“REAL ID is. . .the current face of a far larger, international government and private economic effort to collect, store, and distribute the sensitive biometric data of citizens to use for the twin purposes of government tracking and economic control.” -PA Rep. Sam Rohr

Real ID is technically voluntary for the states. What the government has always intended, is for Real ID to be practically mandatory for the citizens. This is why the threat hangs over our heads that if we do not have a Real ID card by a certian date, we will not be able to fly or enter a federal building.

“In the future, only those state issued Driver Licenses and Identification cards which are fully compliant with the REAL ID act of 2005 will be authorized for use as identification for official federal
government purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft and entering certain regulated federal facilities.” Alabama DMV-STAR ID

A Real ID compliant driver’s license is specifically named as one of the acceptable ID documents in the bill (but all ID documents specified in the bill are biometric ID’s.)

To be perfectly clear – with S.744, producing your government issued, internationally standardized biometric ID is mandatory. You will not be able gain permission to work without it.

In authoritarian societies you must always have permission.

Forget privacy. That is not what this is about. This is about the balance of power between us and our government. This is about control. If we wish to retain control over our own lives, we will not accept government serializing of our bodies and we won’t allow the government to turn our rights into privileges

The Sec. of the Dept. of Homeland Security also has the option to add any other biometric or security feature as a requirement for those who wished to be employed so facial biometrics is the minimum biometric requirement but iris scans, fingerprints, or any other biometric could be required as well.

The new comprehensive immigration reform bill is not the first step in enrolling US citizens in the global biometric identification system. The first step was that every government issued ID (especially the driver’s license) captured and collected your biometric data and that that data was collected in accordance with international standards. The second step is to share your biometric data, to connect databases so that they can get that data flowing freely from the state and local databases on to the federal ones and eventually into global data systems.

One other important step in this global system of identification and control is to make sure we have to produce our global biometric ID for everything. Or at least everything that we do that government wants to track and control. And don’t forget that with biometric ID, your body IS your ID. It’s the databases and not the card we should be focusing on.

Here are a few more facts about the bill as drafted;

Requires ALL potential employees to be authorized to work through the Dept. of Homeland Security. Even If you are already employed when the proposed law goes into effect, you still will have to go through this authorization process.

Authorization hinges upon biometric identification. Biometric data, including but not necessarily limited to, digital facial image, is required. Real ID compliant driver’s licenses are cited as one acceptable form of biometric ID but the bill leaves the door open for the Sec. of the Dept. of Homeland Security to add other security requirements as he or she see fit.

The immigration reform bill requires employers to use a “photo tool” to verify the identity of each employee. The term ‘photo tool’ is simply a euphemism for facial recognition software that will be used to match the facial biometrics provided by the potential employee to a federal database.

Where will this federal database come from? I asked this question of Mark Lerner, co-founder of The Constitutional Alliance, the leading expert on biometrics and the Real ID Act.

Here is his reply:

“The answer will come in the Rulemaking process. There are two possible scenarios. In either scenario the “key” will be the photos stored in state DMV databases. Whether it will be DHS requiring employers to send photos to DHS and DHS having direct or indirect access to state DMV photo databases or whether DHS will require the photos the employers uses to be provided directly to states for the states to compare to photos in the state DMV database remains unclear. I also believe it is clear DHS will get the photo regardless.”

Access to the biometric data held in state DMV databases will be a must.

There are reasons I have been having a fit trying to get my biometric data OUT of the state Department of Public Safety database. I think this bill goes a long way in making my argument for me. Read more about my lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma for the unwarranted collection of my biometric data here.

There is more to this bill to be concerned about For instance, the unconstitutional lack of due process. Every person must prove they are a US citizen before they can work. If the system says you do not pass muster, you are required to be terminated from your job at the end of an administrative process. Will have more info on this and other issues soon.

Mark Lerner is a nationally recognized expert in biometrics and is the co-founder of both the Stop Real ID Coalition and the Constitutional Alliance. www.constitutionalalliance.org

These two organizations have educated citizens across the country on issues regarding the collection, retention and sharing of citizen’s personal information including their biometric information.

Mark has written model legislation that prohibiting participation in the Real ID Act that has been introduced successfully in many state legislatures. He has also testified before committees in many state legislatures resulting in legislation opposing implementation of the Real ID Act 2005. He is the author of the book “Your Body Is Your Id” and is a familiar guest on radio and television shows across the nation.

In the first hour Mark and I will discuss some of the latest high-tech security initiatives and take your calls

Call In Number 512-646-1984

We have two very special guests in the second hour.

First up will be Porter Davis, Executive Committee member of Lawyers for Ron Paul.

Porter is a longtime constitutional activist and a Ron Paul Activist since 2007. He is a former Oklahoma State Representative and was elected as a National Delegate to the RNC in 1988 again in 2008 and in 2012 as an Alternate delegate.

Porter is on the Executive Committee for “Lawyers for Ron Paul” and is here to tell us what this effort is all about.

Charles Key is the longest serving member of the OK. State House of Representatives. Recognized as state and national leader calling for return to constitutional government, Key was the author of Oklahoma’s ”The Tenth Amendment Resolution” that is credited for renewing the country’s spark nationwide for state sovereignty. Charles Key is now running for Oklahoma County Clerk and is with us tonight to discuss the tenants of good government.

City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, destroys woman’s edible landscaping with over 100 varieties of medicinal plants

Denise has since filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city for tyrannizing her and destroying her personal property. Some of her supporters have also set up a Change.org petition demanding that the City of Tulsa replant her garden, compensate her for all losses, and apologize to her for their illegal activities against her (http://www.change.org).

________

The Electronic Police State

An electronic police state is characterized by state use of electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.

The information gathered under an electronic police state is criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial. It is gathered universally (“preventively”) and only later organized for use in prosecutions.

In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email sent, every Internet site surfed, every post made, every check written, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping…are all criminal evidence, and all are held in searchable databases. The individual can be prosecuted whenever the government wishes.

I did an interview Sunday afternoon with Marisa Mendelson from Fox 25. I really appreciate how she took the time to understand the issue and present it fairly.

“A woman in the Metro says she can’t get an Oklahoma driver’s license because it goes against her religion. Because she needs a license or state ID to drive, fly, book a hotel or even get a prescription, the woman is suing the state for a different option.”

Mayor Spinnett is working with the citizens of Damascus to protect property rights and reform local government. Communities all over the country are getting fed up with aggressive city planners forcing burdensome regulations and ordinances down their throats. The people of Damascus are doing something about it.

No matter where you live you will find that your community has lots in common with Damascus and this story will inspire you.

Next we have Mark Lerner, co-founder of the Constitutional Alliance and nationally recognized expert on biometric identification.

HR2164 Legal Workforce Act A national mandated E-Verify law Now before Congress and under consideration.

Mark says that;

The Patriot Act and Real ID are the predecessors for this new proposed

1) The legislation does call for photos and leaves the biometric component solely at the discretion of DHS. The legislation applies to all companies regardless of size.

2) Giving more information to DHS is giving more power and thus more control to our federal government.

3) The burden placed on businesses is more than just excessive.

4) I have offered a alternative solution to E-Verify and Real ID. I do not claim it is the only alternative but it is the only one I have seen that leaves the power in the hands of citizens and states.
That solution is available at http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/ (scroll down to article Proposed solution + state legislation = Protecting our freedom on our homepage). Some believe my alternative goes too
far. I respect the opinion of those that may disagree with me but until they
come with a different solution I will promote the solution I have put forth.
States control the issuance of driver’s licenses, birth certificates and death
certificates. States can determine who is and is not a citizen in all most all
cases. State ID could be used to prove citizenship. Yes, there will be cases
where that may not be doable but that being said you do not destroy the rights
of all citizens for the exception not the rule. My proposed solution does not
call for any centralized database. Regardless of whether you agree with the
proposed solution I offer we all MUST reject HR2164
5) The cost of implementing HR2164 is not the
issue but that being said in addition to the cost of our rights, liberty and
freedom it will cost tens of billions of dollars for every employer to purchase
biometric readers and RFID scanners. For those opposed to larger government, a more intrusive government and less debt HR2164 represents everything you are opposed to.

Please contact Michael Ostrolenk at michaeldostrolenk@gmail.com Michael has a letter (see attached) that citizens, groups and organizations are signing that opposes the
legislation. Time is short. The legislation is moving to mark up this coming
week. Please contact Michael Ostrolenk immediately (by Saturday, September 10, if possible) at the email address provided in this paragraph. I respectfully request that all act NLT this coming Monday, September 12 at the latest. Thank you,

Mark Lerner

Mark is going to explain what this law really does and why and how we should oppose it.

For more info about the anti-E Verify petition, contact Mark at StopRealID@aol.com

We have an incredible line up of guests to help us make sense of the insensible tonight!

I will admit economics isn’t my strong point however some of that may be due to the fact that “economics” has been divorced from fiscal realities for a long time. Tonight Howard has lined up an array of guests that will help shed some light on the fiscal realities we are facing on the municipal level, in regards to energy and on the personal level due to increasing constrictions on our freedom imposed by our government struggling to maintain control.

Ken Yazel was elected Tulsa County Assessor in 2002 and was re-elected in 2006 and again in 2010.

Assessor Yazel says; “Various public officials promised the taxpayers that taxes would not go up if they voted for the bonds.”
At the same time, I was advising those officials and the public that if they project an overly ambitious valuation growth rate, property tax levies go up in subsequent years to meet their obligations.

Guess What?
“Now that values are not rising as fast as projected, property tax rates must increase. The Excise Board will soon approve tax levies based on an increased demand for property taxes and a leaner tax base. The result can only be higher taxes for the citizens of Tulsa County.”

ECONOMY, Energy and the Environment

Next up-Chief Technology Officer of Merica International, Robert Rapier – Economy and Energy

Mr. Rapier career has been devoted to energy issues. He has worked on cellulosic ethanol, butanol production, oil refining, natural gas production, and gas-to-liquids (GTL). Robert Rapier grew up in Oklahoma, and received his Master’s in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M.

“It is my belief that Operation Garden Plot and Noble Eagle-like activation was witnessed in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. I was a police officer there at the time and it fulfilled the plan to a T. Joint patrols with civil authorities, checkpoints for major arteries in and out of the city, soldiers and Humvees stationed at major intersections and bridges, assistance in imposing an unlawful curfew against all citizens, gun confiscation, and even business checks. These “patrols” involved the use of thermal image cameras mounted on the Humvees, looking for warm bodies moving through the darkness and debris, riding with various SWAT teams and responding to gun fights, looting and even conducting traffic stops and simple drug enforcement. ” read more

I insist that you oppose HR 1981, the so-called “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act.”

The very name of the bill is dishonest and offensive. It misleads the public into thinking the bill gives law enforcement expanded tools to protect children from pedophiles.

But actually, it gives law enforcement broad powers to examine ANYONE’s Internet activities, for ANY reason. According to CNET (http://cnet.co/oU5t35):

* It would require commercial Internet providers “to store… customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.”
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren says this would create “a data bank of every digital act by every American” that would “let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.”
* If the law passed, criminals would simply go to libraries or coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

In addition…

* ISP’s will have to reconfigure their systems to accommodate the data retention requirements — an expense they will surely pass on to their customers (to you)
* Combing through mostly irrelevant records of innocent Americans is a highly INEFFICIENT form of catching criminals

As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it, HR 1981, “would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American… Such a scheme would be as objectionable to our Founders as the requiring of licenses for printing presses or the banning of anonymous pamphlets.” (http://bit.ly/rffep9)

The First and Fourth Amendments guarantee my right to anonymity and to privacy. Both disappear if the government tracks my online activities.

Uphold your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Oppose HR 1981!

There is no justification for the federal government to impose itself into the life and lifestyles of rural America. Nothing in the Constitution can be construed to authorize the federal government to require a farm boy to obtain a federal Commercial Driver’s License before he can drive the family tractor. It’s about control, and nothing but control, over every facet of life. See what else the feds are doing to control rural life in… This week’s newsletter!

**We were to post a link here for those who wanted to submit a recommendation on behalf of Mark Lerner to the organizers of the Privacy conference to be held in DC this summer. He has received the support he needed and it is now in the hands of the sponsors-Thanks to all!**

The show was focused on the failures and unworkability of biometric identification. The question that hangs over the discussion is Why? If the technology is not working as promised (and it is decidedly not!) and given the expense why do governments across the globe seem determined to utilize it?

We discussed the the influence of the biometrics industry, the desire of governments to keep close tabs on the people (the word inventory comes to mind) and the perceived need of government to prevent or control chaos. The role of data sharing, e government and Transformational government which relies on computerized records was touched upon as well.

Find sourcing, notes, and my commentary below.

Biometrics are not working as advertised.

David Moss has nearly 33 years experience in IT and has spent over eight years researching and campaigning against the UK Home Office’s biometric ID card scheme.

David mentioned a European Commission initiative called “Project STORK”

STORK requires the national systems of several countries to be interoperable.

EU/UK: EU pilot to boost compatibility of eID kicks off in the UK, 15 October 2007

The ultimate goal of the STORK project is to implement an EU-wide interoperable system for the recognition and authentication of eIDs [electronic identities] that will enable businesses, citizens and government employees to use their national eIDs in any Member State. Once established, this would significantly facilitate migration between Member States, allowing easy access to a variety of eGovernment services including, for example, social security, medical prescriptions and pension payments. It could also ease cross-border student enrolment in colleges …

The UK’s Identity and Passport Service (IPS) is leading the pilot project, in close co-operation with the Government Gateway, the UK’s centralised registration service. “It is about the eventual pan-European recognition of electronic IDs,” noted an IPS spokesperson.

David writes; HMRC lost two discs containing the personal details of 25 million people. That exposes 25 million people to the threat of fraud. Given which, the question arises whether the government should proceed with the ID cards scheme — creating yet another database just increases the risk of losing data and could lead to more fraud.

“If our last two prime ministers are to be believed, and our last five home secretaries, the solution to all the problems of crime detection, counter-terrorism and the delivery of efficient public services is … biometrics. They’re certainly labelling our money into biometrics. But no one ever asks, do biometrics work?”

As of late David Moss has been focused on India’s Unique Identification (UID) project that endeavors to biometrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people. David Moss is a biometric skeptic and for good reason.

The biometric delusion

Suppose that there were 60 million UK ID cardholders. To prove that each person is represented by a unique electronic identity on the population register, each biometric would have to be compared with all the rest. That would involve making 1.8 x 1015 comparisons.

Suppose further that the false match rate for biometrics based on either facial geometry or fingerprints was one in a million (1 x 10-6). It isn’t. It’s worse than that. But suppose that it was that good, then there would be 1.8 x 109 false matches for IPS to check.

It is not feasible for IPS to check 1.8 billion false matches. It is therefore not feasible for these biometrics to do their identification job.

In reading about India’s ID project, I found some aspects of the program very disturbing.

The program is being pitched as a way to help the poor to better access the services they need.

Nilekani maintains that the main purpose of the UID project is to empower the vast numbers of excluded Indians. “For the poor this is a huge benefit because they have no identities, no birth certificates, degree certificates, driver’s licences, passports or even addresses.” link

But when you read further into the aims of the project, you wonder if maybe having no identity might be preferable.

Fears of Privacy Loss Pursue Ambitious ID Project

Monday 06 September 2010

New Delhi – Fears about loss of privacy are being voiced as India gears up to launch an ambitious scheme to biometrically identify and number each of its 1.2 billion inhabitants.

In September, officials from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), armed with fingerprinting machines, iris scanners and cameras hooked to laptops, will fan out across the towns and villages of southern Andhra Pradesh state in the first phase of the project whose aim is to give every Indian a lifelong Unique ID (UID) number.

[. . .]According to Nilekani, the UID will most benefit India’s poor who, because they lack identity documentation, are ignored by service providers.

The program is said to be voluntary, but is it really?

At the Aug. 25 meeting, Ramanthan said that while enrolling with the UIDAI may be voluntary, other agencies and service providers might require a UID number in order to transact business. Indeed, the UIDAI has already signed agreements with banks, state governments and hospital chains which will allow them to ask customers for UIDs. (Emphasis mine)

India’s ID program could compromise freedoms to buy, sell or travel.

Ramanathan said that, taken to its logical limit, the UID project will make it impossible, in a couple of years, for an ordinary citizen to undertake a simple task such as travelling within the country without a UID number. (Emphasis mine)

The UIDAI will work with the National Population Register (NPR). . . And as a government website says: “Certain information collected under the NPR will be published in the local areas for public scrutiny and invitation of objections.”

NATGRID

If you ask me, this ID system provides citizens with “safety” by way of surveillance and promises the governments of India a more compliant population.

But things begin to look ominous when seen in the context of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), the setting up of which home minister P. Chidambaram announced in February as part of his response to a major terrorist attack. Chidambaram said NATGRID would tap into 21 sets of databases that will be networked to achieve “quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence and enforcement agencies.” He added that NATGRID will “identify those who must be watched, investigated, disabled and neutralised.” (Emphasis mine)

Chidambaram said NATGRID would tap into 21 sets of databases that will be networked to achieve “quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence and enforcement agencies.” He added that NATGRID will “identify those who must be watched, investigated, disabled and neutralised.”

Natgrid, the brainchild of Home Minister P Chidambaram, is based on the US model.(Emphasis mine) It will integrate the existing 21 databases with Central and state government agencies and other organisations in the public and private sector such as banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges, airlines, railways, telecom service providers, chemical vendors, etc. LINK

The telecom and internet service providers will be mandated by regulations to compulsorily link up their databases with NATGRID. The databases so far identified for being linked in the grid include those of rail and air travel, phone calls, bank accounts, credit card transactions, passport and visa records, PAN cards, land and property records, automobile ownership and driving licences. Link

In the US 911 is cited as the justification for the massive restructuring of our national security apparatus and policy, in India it is the attacks in Mumbai.

The 26/11 attacks in Mumbai changed the paradigm of what was till then considered to be internal security, demonstrating clearly to the government that the battle lines have been re-drawn. [ . . .]Thus, any response to tackle threats emanating from terrorism would not be effective if we continued to follow the old conventional strategies; instead our response must involve a change of mindset, security doctrines and a new counter-terror framework. Link

India’s worsening security situation excites global defence firms

BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest defence contractors, sees a number of business opportunities, relating to the country’s nascent National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid) programmes.

“We have been talking to the ministry of home affairs a great deal on the grid programmes, and feel there is an obvious opportunity there,” Guy Douglas, spokesman for BAE India, said. The Natgrid is a giant database of comprehensive intelligence reports, designed to collate information collected from phones and income tax records, along with airport and immigration details of individuals.

According to Mr Douglas, BAE’s subsidiary Detica, which specialises in collecting, managing and exploiting information that could lead to actionable intelligence, could be harnessed for India’s intelligence community. LINK

In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, this is the reason governments want biometric identification systems so badly.

The US Department of Defense states:

“Biometrics technologies have the unique potential to provide the Department with the capability to take away an adversary’s anonymity”

Unfortunately the “biometrics technologies” that the DoD is referring to are not applied in an as needed fashion. These technologies will/must apply to all of us, all of the time. In other words it isn’t just the “bad guys” who will have their privacy and freedom stripped away from them-it is each and every one of us.

“The biometrics science and technology program addresses the technology gaps that preclude our ability to quickly and accurately identify anonymous individuals who threaten our interests, in whatever domain they operate.”

Why do I read “our interests” to be more inclusive of the interests of the government and not necessarily inclusive of the people? Can it be that so much of Homeland Security and national security efforts in general seem to be directed at rather than protective of the people of this country?

One thing I am deeply resentful of is the wholehearted embracing by our government of the new paradigm of security that emphasizes the power of prediction and preemptive policing techniques that are in opposition to the legal and natural rights of the citizens. It shatters the very unity our country needs the most during times of uncertainty. I am concerned that this “new paradigm” is creating an environment of suspicion and fear between the authorities and the people. It seems to me that the implications of such mistrust and even fear negates any gains that such policies may promise to government.

The Price of Security

“The desire for security, while in itself natural and legitimate, can become an obsession which ultimately must be paid for by the loss of freedom and human dignity—whether people realize it or not.

In the end, it is clear that whoever is prepared to pay this price is left neither with freedom and dignity nor with security, for there can be no security without freedom and protection from arbitrary power.

To this exorbitant price must be added another . . . namely, the steady diminution of the value of money. Surely, every single one of us must then realize that security is one of those things which recede further and further away the more unrestrainedly and violently we desire it.”

—Wilhelm Röpke, A Humane Economy

We touched upon the subject of “Transformational Government” which I understand to be in line with what is more commonly referred to as the Reinvention of Government in the US.

From Wikipedia– Transformational Government is a term which describes the use of computer-based information and communications technologies (ICT) to enable radical improvement to the delivery of public services. The term is commonly used to describe a government reform strategy which aims to avoid the limitations which have come to be seen as associated with a traditional e-Government strategy.

During the last two decades, governments around the world have invested in ICT with the aim of increasing the quality and decreasing the cost of public services. But over that time, as even the least developed countries have moved to websites, e-services and e-Government strategies, it has become increasingly clear that e-Government has not delivered all the benefits that were hoped for it.[1] One study found that 35% of e-government projects in developing countries resulted in total failures; and that 50% were partial failures.[2]Read more

Data sharing

by David Moss

Wouldn’t it be better if (WIBBI) government departments shared data? Public services could then be more effective. And cheaper. And customised, or tailored, to the individual.

It’s a seductive WIBBI. Sharing sounds like the sort of thing pleasant communities do. The public is always a deserving recipient. Service is a humble and dedicated vocation. If the service offers good value for money, so much the better. Recognising each individual’s unique requirements squares the circle – a universal service which is at the same time trained with laser precision on the particular.

Right now we are being treated to a massive marketing campaign meant to capitalize on our collective frustration with the size of government. Those who have been watching our government closely over the years will recognize this rhetoric as very similar to the rhetoric of the 90’s.

President Bill Clinton in 1995 declared in his State of the Union address that “The era of big government is over.”

Hardly true, (Read “The Clinton Era by The Numbers”) but Clinton was following up on his earlier promises to “Reinvent Government ” that began with a report issued by the National Performance Review, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, in 1993.

Most people regarded the Reinvention of Government as an initiative to downsize the bloated bureaucracy. Reinvention, as understood by most, was supposed to make the government work better and cost less.

Many who supported the idea of whacking back government to a more sensible size express dismay that by this yardstick, the reinvention initiatives have failed miserably if the real goal was to downsize government.

Reinventing’s Roots

The Clinton administration’s reinventing government campaign grew directly out of David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s 1992 best seller, Reinventing Government. Osborne, a writer and consultant, teamed with Gaebler, a former city manager and consultant, to argue that “entrepreneurial” government offered government its most productive future. http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cpm/government.pdf

[. . .]NPR started its work in April 1993 with an inspiring set of principles and a clear vision of what it wanted to accomplish. The main objective was to create a government that works better and costs less by empowering employees to put customers first, cutting the red tape that holds back employees, and cutting back to basics.”

Consider this statement (from the NPR) very carefully.

“Strategically, the Vice President chose to focus efforts on how the government works, not on what it should be doing.”

A common complaint about the whole “reinvention of government” plan is that the the reinvention guru’s keep moving the goalposts. After much research, I have come to believe they aren’t moving the goalposts at all-they have purposely obscured what the true goals of reinventing government really are and I think that this omission is an entirely a strategic one. Amazingly the Reinvention gurus like David Osbourne have managed to sell the concept without openly revealing the product. The marketers purposefully focus on how government does what it does without ever addressing the fundamental issue of what it is government is supposed to do. This may the reason that reinventing government has not resulted in downsizing government.

The sum of good government to Thomas Jefferson was one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”

One thing that continues to unnerve me after doing some research into the Reinvention of Government is to hear well intentioned officials repeating the platitudes of Reinvention gurus like David Osbourne. The effort to reinvent government has been led from the beginning by organizations with a pronounced ideology and one that most officials that are currently involved with the continuation of these efforts would not profess to ascribe to.

Here’s a couple of blurbs that give a glimpse into the thinking behind the front line rhetoric of making government more efficient;

From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism.

The core principles and ideas of this “Third Way” movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. (emphasis mine)

On Sunday, April 25, 1999, the President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D’Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.

More attention will be given to examining the ideological aspect of this “movement” in more detail in future AxXiom for Liberty shows and on this blog.

One last thought;

David Osborne, co-author of the book that started the revolution of reinvention in government writes;

“Just as Columbus never knew he had come upon a new continent, many of today’s pioneers—from governors to city managers, teachers to social workers—do not understand the global significance of what they are doing.”

We can bet that this much is true.

David Moss makes a very important point in this next article entitled ‘So what’s new?’

The thesis is;

We do not live in a new world. We live in the same world we have always lived in.

Mr Brown believes this is a new world. He says so in his speech. 34 times:

… a new chapter in our country’s story of liberty … new issues of terrorism and security … new frontiers in both our lives and our liberties … new challenges … new rights for the public expression of dissent … new freedoms that guarantee the independence of non-governmental organisations … new rights to access public information … new rights against arbitrary intrusion … new technology … new rights to protect your private information … new provision for independent judicial scrutiny and open parliamentary oversight … Renewing for our time our commitment to freedom … a new British constitutional settlement for our generation … the new tests of our time … we meet these tests not by abandoning principles of liberty but by giving them new life … a new generation … new challenges … new measures … the new rules … the new rules … New rules … What is new about 21st century ideas of privacy … new powers of access to information … new opportunities to use biometrics … the opportunities of new technology … a new and imaginative approach to accountability … new laptop computers … new powers … the new information age … new threats to our security … a new British Bill of Rights and Duties … a new chapter in the British story of liberty …

To anyone of a conservative bent, all these references to novelty are suspicious and need to be viewed with scepticism. We do not live in a new world. We live in the same world we have always lived in.

Even the sanctity of liberty can be trumped by the super-sanctity of security. He’s not an equality man (Labour). He’s not a liberty man (Liberal). He’s a security man (Raytheon). And he’s a long way down that “authoritarian path”.

Also discussed was Capgemini and a program called “ContactPoint” in the UK

What is Capgemini?

Capgemini is a global consulting and information technology firm, with a seasoned approach working collaboratively with many federal, state and local government agencies to help address fiscal challenges and improve the efficiency and quality of IT services delivered to citizens. We work with the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, as well as multiple state and municipal tax, social welfare, criminal justice and public health departments.

On November 1, 2010 OK-SAFE filed an Open Records request to the Office of State Finance, seeking more detailed information about the state’s contract with Capgemini, the global consulting, technology, and outsourcing firm, headquartered in Paris, France. Read more about the open records request and findings here

In 2009 the OK Republican-led legislature created the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO), a new cabinet position appointed by the Governor. (HB 1170)

Oklahoma’s new CIO is Alex Pettit, officed in the Office of State Finance.

The OK CIO has signed a $1 million (actually $999,100) contract with a global company named Capgemini, specializing in Consulting, Technology, and Outsourcing, to perform an assessment of the state’s entire IT systems.

With several divisions worldwide, including the UK, India, Australia, and the US, Capgemini’s main headquarters are in Paris, France. (Just like Safran?)

Capgemini has two subcontractors: BDNA Corp. (The IT Genome Project) and Roraima Consulting, Inc. (out of Jamaica, NY)

There are growing concerns about this contract and the possible direction Oklahoma could be heading.

Bolton kick-starts child database pilot

The government’s controversial plan to keep a file on every child in England has received a boost after an NHS trust reversed its decision to withhold information about local children from social services.

The board of Bolton primary care trust (PCT) decided last night that they had the statutory power to put the name, address, date of birth and gender of every child on its records onto a database accessible to other agencies.

The decision means that Bolton Unlimited, one of 10 information, referral and tracking (IRT) pilots set up to improve information sharing, will be able to start building a comprehensive database on all 60,000-70,000 children in the area.

Legal experts had previously warned that the proposal in the children’s green paper to establish local databases on all children – collating information held by councils, the health service and the police – would breach data protection and privacy laws.

The government acknowledges the risks by instituting protocols to “shield” details of celebrity and vulnerable children. But all children are potentially vulnerable to misuse of information, and the potential for this is enormous. Evidence presented last year to the management board of the Leeds NHS Trust showed that in one month the 14,000 staff logged 70,000 incidents of inappropriate access. On the basis of these figures, misuse of ContactPoint could run to 1,650,000 incidents a month. Is this going to protect children?

On Tuesday June 1st, 2010 the Department for Education (the renamed Department for Children, Schools and Families) issued the following – on behalf of Sarah Teather (Lib-Dem and Minister for Children and Families) – to members of the Information Sharing Advisory Group, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and suppliers of case management systems.

We [the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government] are scrapping ContactPoint. We will develop better ways of keeping children safe. The investment made won’t be wasted because we can use the technical expertise we’ve acquired to protect those children most in need. But the idea of a single national IT database for all children has gone for good.

The communiqué from the Department for Education contained no other information on what future arrangements might look like nor any indicative timescale for the ‘scrapping’ of ContactPoint.

The Revolving Door that Never Stops Turning

Six years ago I started speaking out about a small company in Massachusetts called Viisage Technology. Not many people paid attention to what I had to say because the company was only a $50 million company. After a few quick steps that would rival anything you might find on any of the reality dancing shows on television Viisage has morphed into a billion dollar plus company. I can provide a number of reasons you should care about L-1 Identity Solutions, the company Viisage Technology transformed into. I will start by mentioning that Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI), Admiral Loy (former head of the Transportation Security Agency), George Tenet (former Director of the CIA), Frank Moss (former program manager for the State Department’s E-Passport program, and many others who previously held key positions in the federal government all joined Viisage/L-1 as members of the Board of Directors or as paid employees of Viisage/L-1.

L-1, writes Mark Lerner, dominates the state driver’s license business. L-1 also produces all passport cards, involved in the production of all passports, provides identification documents for the Department of Defense and has contracts with nearly every intelligence agency in our government. To a large extent it is fair to say that your personal information is L-1’s information. L-1 is the same company that thinks our political party affiliation should be on our driver’s license along with our race. L-1 has a long history starting with its taking over Viisage Technology. It was a great sleight of hand, Viisage morphing into L-1 while Viisage was under investigation by our government.

[. . .]L-1 is being sold to two European companies. One of the companies is buying the division of L-1 that has contracts with nearly every intelligence agency in the United States government. The biometric and document credential divisions are being sold to a French company named Safran. Just think about how happy you can feel now knowing that your personal information including your social security number and biometric information (fingerprints, Iris scans and digital facial images) may soon be available to a French company. The federal government must sign off on the deal before the deal can be sealed. All this brings us back to the topic of the revolving door that exists between government and corporations.

Our former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the honorable Michael Chertoff certainly did not take long to walk through the revolving door. Last year, 2009 Mr. Chertoff was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; this year, 2010 he is a strategic advisor to the French company Safran. (Emphasis mine)

So, will L1 be permitted to sell to Safran? It is a private corporation right? This is just one problem that we encounter when these corporations get so cozy with government-with L1goes contracts with nearly every state in the country for our driver’s license. L-1 also provides welfare identification cards as well as other ID documents to states and tens of millions of dollars in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security.

The threats to our liberty and autonomy posed by biometric identification and national (even international!) identity cards have been amply covered by this blog and millions of other sources. These concerns about the deleterious effects of biometric identity schemes on individual freedoms are justified but what has not received nearly enough coverage is the nuts and bolts of the technology itself. Does biometric identification or verification of identity really work well enough to justify the investment that nations around the globe are making? Biometrics for identification purposes have been promoted as a solution for just about every problem that vexes government today…Identity theft, fraud, illegal immigration and of course, terrorism, just to name a few. Who are the corporations that are vested in selling this technology and can they back up their claims?

On Friday April 29th from 6-8 pm CST we are pleased to bring together two of possibly the most credentialed critics of the biometrics industry to be found.

David Moss has nearly 33 years experience in IT and has spent over eight years researching and campaigning against the UK Home Office’s biometric ID card scheme.

In 2009 David Moss posed this question to the public;

“If our last two prime ministers are to be believed, and our last five home secretaries, the solution to all the problems of crime detection, counter-terrorism and the delivery of efficient public services is … biometrics. They’re certainly labelling our money into biometrics. But no one ever asks, do biometrics work?”

As of late David Moss has been focused on India’s Unique Identification (UID) project that endeavors to bio metrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people. David Moss is a biometric skeptic and for good reason.

Mark Lerner, another well respected biometrics expert and critic of biometric ID in the US, joins the conversation. At one time Mark Lerner believed that biometric technology like fingerprinting, facial recognition, iris scanning, could valuable tool for protecting our nation and traveled the country promoting its use. But he soon discovered that the Biometrics industry was engaged in many reprehensible acts. Mark provided solid evidence of these misdeeds to the US government but the results of that investigation never made it to Congress or the public. For the past 6 years Mark has been speaking out about what he knows testifying before many state legislatures and assisting lawmakers in nearly two dozen states in writing legislation designed to protect citizens from ill-considered uses of biometric and similar technologies.

This is a must hear discussion that will deliver information and covers aspects of biometric identification rarely touched by the mainstream media.

We are stealthily being locked into a national ID. To be precise, it’s worse than a national ID, it’s an international ID that uses technology to identify us by the characteristics of our very bodies. If the implications of this fact are not immediately clear, understand that no one will be able to escape this system of human cataloging or inspection.

This is not about whether or not you trust your government. A better question is do you trust all governments and do you trust them all both now and into the future to never abuse this ability to separate you or your loved ones from their ability to secure for ourselves the basic necessities of life.

That is the power a global biometric identification system will enable for all governments, over all of us living now and those who will come in the future.

Saying no is not enough-we need a solution, an alternative. We have one.

There is a straightforward and Constitutional means to validate identity without destroying the presumption of innocence which is the cornerstone in our system of justice.

The Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss
Now, the Star-Bell Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.
Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

The REAL ID Act imposed federal guidelines that States must adopt for their state driver’s licenses and identification cards. Furthermore, those federal guidelines include international standards. Why is that important? There is only one reason to set international standards and that is allow for international sharing of the information. So while we continue to debate whether or not Real ID is a national ID card, the truth is that it is actually an international ID.

At least elevennineteen States have met all of 18 benchmarks that constitute Real ID.

Even if your state was one of the 25 that have passed either a law or resolution against Real ID, the federal government doesn’t find that fact to be any obstacle at all to continuing to force the states to implement Real ID. Your state is most likely still working to implement Real ID. Real ID compliant driver’s licenses will be marked with a gold star.

How can that be? Well, the policy is simply not being called “Real ID” although the benchmarks are the exact same ones set for Real ID.

“. . .many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks.” http://tinyurl.com/4rgrv87

And

The ASI card, also known as “the card with the star,” is marked with a gold star indicating that it’s materially compliant with the Real ID Act’s regulations and can be used as identification for federal purposes” March 22, 2010 Nevada link

So right under the noses of our state legislators, some of whom went to bat and got a law passed to prohibit Real ID,the administrators of State Departments of Public Safety or the Departments of Motor Vehicles are continuing to work on enrolling us all into an international biometric ID as though nothing ever happened. Neat trick huh?

That is a great idea and if those in charge on both the state and federal level had more respect for the American people and the law, this response should be adequate. The reality is that those in charge are not following the rules, they are too busy circumventing them.

They will do the same thing with the blatantly unconstitutional Health Care Reform Bill or any other DC mandate for that matter if we do not speak up.

Just saying NO! doesn’t seem to be working very well.

The states should be the guardians of their citizens’ domicile information and only share this data when the federal government has a legal need or right to know.

_______________________________

Back to our “Gold Star” resistors down in Florida who are demonstrating appropriate outrage to the situation that they have found themselves in.

Those Sneeches who do NOT have a star will be prohibited from:

Accessing Federal facilities;

Boarding Federally regulated commercial aircraft;

Entering nuclear power plants; and

Any other purpose that the Secretary shall determine.

That’s right! Janet Napolitano can add ANY other purpose that she decides should require the “gold star” at her sole discretion. She doesn’t need your approval or even the approval of the person you elected to represent you- your congress person.

Do you have a little gold star on your driver’s license and what does this star mean?

What happens if you don’t get the “gold star”?

This Florida resident and co-host of the radio show “Liberty Underground”, explains why the “gold star” is where he draws the line.

Saying no is not enough. We have done that. We have been clear about what we won’t do. Now we need to say clearly what we will do.

Most of are certain that erecting a surveillance state is not the proper destiny for our country but most of us lack the knowledge and expertise to sit down and draw up an alternative solution to problems like illegal immigration, border security, terrorism and fraud.

This puts us in the terrible position: We can only reject or accept the remedies that have been chosen for us.

There is one person who has taken the time and used his knowledge and expertise to figure out a way to tackle this problems a manner that respects the fundamental rights of all. Mark Lerner of the Constitutional Alliance has done just that. In this article Mark describes the problems and a simple but better solution, step by step.

If you are concerned about the issues I mentioned but are ambivalent about the solutions being offered to thwart them, then please read every word of the following article, “I don’t care who you are; the government does” by Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition and Constitutional Alliance has written. He has done the hard work for us and all we have to do is get this information out by sharing it with anyone who needs to know that we do not have to sacrifice all to get results.

Our state legislators need this information immediately because they are facing the resurrection (continuation really) of Real ID and as well as onslaught of other well intentioned but fatally flawed “solutions” to illegal immigration and national security.

With this information in hand and our informed prompting, our legislators will not be able to say that there was no other choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don’t care who you are; the government does

article by Mark Lerner

Would you give an alcoholic a shot of Vodka? Would you give a heroin addict a syringe? Would you give a shopaholic your credit card? Feeding an addiction is never the solution. Think about “addiction” as you read this document.

Is there a solution that will address both the concerns of those that support Arizona’s S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act 2005? The answer is there is a viable solution; an alternative to both Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act 2005. S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act are as different as night and day to some people. I will identify what the two laws have in common and what makes them different. The solution I provide is not only viable but protects the rights of states and the rights of citizens. The solution is to digitize and sequentially number all birth certificates. Alright, the solution is not that simple but the solution has at its core the digitizing and numbering of birth certificates. Within this document that solution is discussed at some length.

I cannot speak for everyone but I will say that I am tired of those that are against everything and then have no viable solutions to respond to whatever they are opposed to. I do not care if people present their own solutions or those of someone else but at least they should be able to provide something positive. Even if what they present is not a “finished” product, they can provide a “framework” for a solution..

I started out what seems a lifetime ago, seven – fourteen days ago, responding to requests from people and groups around the country to write an article about Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act 2005. Originally, I had hoped the article would be a quick read. I realized immediately not everyone has the same “jumping off point”. Some of us know more or less than others about the Real ID Act and Arizona’s S.B.1070. There is a need to lay some groundwork so that those who have little or no knowledge about the Real ID Act and/or Arizona S.B.1070 have a “starting point”.

Before getting to Arizona‘s S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act it is important to build a foundation for the discussion we are about to have. If you believe you do not have the time to read this document you are wrong. What you do not have is the time to ignore this document or shove it aside until you find the time. Decisions are being made, laws are being implemented and legislation is being considered right now that will go a long way in deciding what type of society we each will be living in and what type of society will be leaving for our children and grandchildren.

A fair question to ask by those that do not know me is, am I qualified to comment on the Real ID Act 2005 and Arizona S.B.1070? I have testified before many committees in many states on issues ranging from biometrics, information sharing, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) and the Real ID Act 2005. I have also met with high ranking staff members of the members of Congress, legal counsels for committees in Congress, and members of Congress themselves.

I am not thought of by those that know me as being “soft” on illegal immigration, voter fraud, identity theft, or terrorism. I do not accept that we must necessarily go with the solutions that Republican lawmakers or Democratic lawmakers endorse. As citizens we must decide for ourselves what works and what may not work. Ultimately it will be lawmakers that make decisions that turn into laws but we must be informed citizens so that we may make informed decisions for ourselves. Not as Democrats, Independents or Republicans but as citizens we must tell lawmakers how we stand on “issues”. If we fail to become informed and to tell lawmakers where we stand, then our voices will become the voices of the past; not the future.

Each of the last three years lobbyists have spent approximately $3 billion. There are 535 members of Congress. Take the amount spent lobbying and divide that amount by 535 and on average you will find $5.5 million has been spent persuading each member of Congress each year on a range of issues. Whether you are a Democrat, Independent, or Republican you should be concerned about the influence lobbyists have on the members of Congress. The $3 billion a year does not include campaign donations.

Before analyzing both Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act 2005 I want to acknowledge the concerns of those that support S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act are justified. Voting fraud, identity theft, preventing terrorists from using state driver’s licenses to facilitate their actions and benefits being provided to people that are in our country illegally are issues, some may even call threats, we must deal with as a country. Appreciate there are no quick fixes. We must be careful not to accept a cure that is worse than the disease in the name of expediency or for any other reason. When you have finished reading this document I believe you will find that Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act are worse than the disease and have much in common.

The disease is one thing that can be described easily. The federal government has an addiction. That addiction is to the personal and sensitive information about each of us including our biometrics. Biometrics is defined as measurements of the body. Commonly we think of fingerprinting, iris scans and facial recognition technology when thinking of biometrics. Facial recognition is essentially the using of a high resolution photograph to “map” the face. Measurements are taken between key characteristics of the face. An algorithm is then used to create a biometric template. The biometric templates are then compared to one another to see if there is a match.

The Washington Post has published articles that raise a very important question. The question raised by the Washington Post and one will should be asking ourselves is, can the government be collecting too much information? Can the government be building a proverbial “haystack” so large that it cannot find the “needles/bad guys”? In July, 2010 The Washington Post published the following:

“These are some of the findings of a two year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.” And “Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.”

This paper is not intended to play the “blame game”. There are many reasons for illegal immigration. Some may refer to people in our country illegally as “undocumented workers”. I have no interest in the “semantics game” either. Regardless of where you stand on what should be done about those in our country illegally, most people including Democratic lawmakers and Republican lawmakers agree that border security is national security. We must have secure borders irrespective of what our immigration policy is going to be.

Not all supporters of S.B.1070 are supporters of the Real ID Act and vice versa.

Whenever we discuss any laws, be they state or federal, we must ensure we are honoring our foremost responsibility as citizens. We must each ensure we pass the rights, liberty and freedom on to the children of today that we inherited at such great sacrifice of previous generations.

It does not matter whether we are speaking about a state law or a federal law we must ensure we are meeting our foremost responsibility as citizens. It is bad enough that we passing on a national debt of over what is now $14 trillion onto future generations but to also restrict or eliminate their Constitutional rights is unforgivable. Those on the “left” and “right” echoed the words of President Bush shortly after 9/11:

“We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.”

I would submit that since 9/11 we have done little to create real security and a great deal to create perceived security. We have certainly failed to meet our foremost responsibility as citizens.

Perceived security can be argued to be worse than no security. If we believe we are secure and the reality is we are not, then it is likely we will not take the necessary actions that create real security.

Secretary of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), Janet Napolitano says our borders are more secure then they have ever been. That is not the same thing as saying our borders are secure. When we start with a baseline of near zero border security it does not take much to improve the situation on our borders.

You may have some preconceived notions about different programs the federal government has been pushing/promoting. This is an appropriate time to provide you with some facts about a few of those programs. You may have to cut and paste the links provided that verifies what I am saying. If you received this document in the body of an email rather than as an attachment you should be able to just click on the links provided.

Many people have heard about E-Verify. This is another government plan to address illegal immigration. You probably been told E-Verify is nearly foolproof. It is very accurate if it is the information of U.S. citizens being “run” through system. When a person is in our country illegally and the information they provide is “run” through the system, E-Verify is wrong (56%) more than it is right (44%). The program cannot even identify fraud. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/Accuracy-Of-Federal-E-Verify-Program.htm

The federal government accepts failure, does that mean the states and citizens must as well? I have informed you about E-Verify being wrong more than it is right. Did you know the DHS has accepted failure as a goal? The goal of DHS to stop illegal goods or people from entering our country at authorized CPB (Custom Border Patrol) ports of entry was 30% for 2010. That’s right, a 70% failure rate. The following is directly from the GAO (General Accounting Office) http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/how-effective-cbp-keeping-us-borders-safe

Why I am focusing on DHS? It is DHS that will be receiving the information sent by authorities in Arizona under the provisions of S.B.1070. It is also DHS that is primarily responsible for implementing the Real ID Act 2005. Virtually all responsibilities of the federal government related to “immigration” are the responsibility of DHS. PUBLIC LAW 107-296 of the 107 Congress (2002) created the Department of Homeland Security and abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

You may think I am paranoid. Is a person paranoid that told people years in advance that we would be at the point we are at today, feeding the government’s addiction for our personal information I spoke of earlier? Is it paranoia when seven years ago I warned of a plan to create a “National ID Card” that was centered on biometric enrollment? I actually was wrong then because the plan became one to create an international ID card.

I started speaking out many years ago about the wrongdoing of what was at that time the largest biometric company in the United States, Viisage Technology. In January, 2005 before the Real ID Act was even considered by Congress I turned over what attorneys called a “mountain of evidence” to the federal government that went to the issues of “rigged testing”, over exaggerating results and providing a select group of wealthy insiders with “news” that the general investment community was not being made aware of at the time. The ensuing federal investigation lasted nearly two years without any notification to Congress or the public of the results. I have and am paying plenty for “stirring” the pot.

Prior to my turning over the evidence I did to the federal government I personally had met with Chairmen of the Board’s and other senior people in the biometrics community. I was asked to help promote the use of biometrics as a tool in the “war on terrorism”.

I attended the conferences, spoke with people in law enforcement and communicated publicly about my support for the use of biometrics for a couple of years. That all came to an end as instance after instance occurred where I was told by senior and mid-level people in the biometrics community of wrongdoing. I finally reached a point when I not only could not support the use of biometrics; I had to speak out against the use of biometrics.

I understand that people convicted of crimes should have to provide their biometrics to law enforcement. I also understand that if a court issues a warrant for a person’s biometrics, the individual will have to provide their biometrics. The Real ID Act goes much further than what I am describing. Under Real ID there are no rules other than the rules DHS decides they should abide by. You may think I am kidding but I assure you I am not.

“Robert Mocny, acting program manager for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, sketched the outline of a Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with their personal data held by governments and corporations.”

When information is allowed to flow freely between governments and corporations your biggest concern should not be the unsolicited phone calls you get from telemarketers because corporations have too much access to your personal information. Your biggest concern should be: Is government collecting any and all personal information about you and what is government doing what that information?

The following appeared in a November 29, 2006 article that also was released by Government Computer News:

“Mocny conceded that each of the 10 privacy laws currently in effect in the United States has an exemption clause for national-security purposes. He added that the department only resorts to its essentially unlimited authority under those clauses when officials decide that there are compelling reasons to do so.”

It is true that as things are today DHS has what Mocny called “essentially unlimited authority”.

On September 8, 2010 DHS declared/published in the Federal Register their intention to no longer comply with the Privacy Act of 1974.

Oh wait, it gets better; included in the “Final Rules” of the Real ID Act 2005 issued January 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security has unfettered authority/discretion to issue “official purposes” which identify for what purposes a Real ID compliant driver’s license is required. Currently that would include flying on a commercial airliner, entering nuclear plants or entering federal facilities. Should the Secretary of DHS wake up tomorrow and decide that obtaining prescription drugs, entering a shopping mall, going on a college campus, or purchasing ammunition or a gun require a Real ID compliant driver’s license, there is no requirement that the Secretary should or must first consult with Congress. Congress decided when it passed the Real ID Act that they would give the Secretary of DHS authority to do what Congress is supposed to do; amend laws.

I have gone to great lengths in this document to substantiate what I have stated. To that end I am providing the language directly from the “Final Rules” for Real ID Act released by DHS in January, 2008..

“DHS agrees with those commenters who noted that the proposed definition of “official purpose” is consistent with Congressional intent. DHS is neither expanding nor limiting the definition further in this rule. DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of “official purpose” or determinations regarding additional uses for REAL ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future (except of course to remove one of the three statutorily-mandated official purposes) as 9 20 l(3) of the Act gives discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine other purposes.”

A couple of years ago I met with both the Deputy Chief Counsel and the Chief Counsel for the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee. After the meeting I asked the question, how would the public feel if they knew what was discussed today in this meeting? The reply I received from the Deputy Counsel was short, “They would be outraged.”

When I first started having questions about Viisage Technology (the company that was at the center of the evidence I provided the government) the company had a market cap/value of $50 million approximately. Today the company has morphed and is now called L-1 Identity Solutions. The value of the company is well over $1.5 billion. It has become the revolving door over the last 6 years or so for many in government including but not limited to former Directors of both the FBI and CIA. You can throw in for good measure the Secretary of the Transportation Security Agency and the State Department’s lead person on the implementation of E-Passport (A federal initiative that incorporates biometrics and RFID technology into U.S. passports). Give or take, there are about a half dozen other former senior government employees that have gone through the revolving door at Viisage/L-1 Identity Solutions. http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:the-revolving-door-that-never-stops-turning&catid=1:articles

If you are not somewhat concerned about DHS and Viisage Technology/L-1 Identity Solutions then consider that L-1 announced last year that it was being sold to two European companies. L-1 is not just the largest biometric company in the United States but also has the driver’s license contracts in nearly every state. In the contracts I have read (not all) L-1 has back up capability/responsibility for state’s DMV (Department of Motor Vehicle) databases or a portion thereof. The biometric and document production divisions of L-1 are being sold to a French company named Safran. http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/09/20/l-1-acquired-by-safran-and-bae-in-1-6b-merger-deal/ The French government has an ownership position in Safran. L-1 also produces state welfare identification documents, is involved in the production of U.S. passports, produces all passport cards and has numerous contracts to provide technology to DHS. Are you comfortable with a French company potentially and realistically having access to your personal information? The third division of L-1 is the “Intelligence Consulting” division. L-1 has contracts with many of the intelligence agencies within our federal government. The intelligence consulting division of L-1 is being sold to a company in the United Kingdom.

To those of us who believe scripture is true and biblical prophecy is not just words, L-1 is seen as a company that represents what we read in Revelation 13:16-18. Developed countries around the world are issuing their own biometric identification cards. L-1 is the facilitator for many of these countries including India (1.2 billion people). Last year L-1 and the World Bank reached an agreement that facilitates L-1 providing biometric identification cards to all “developing” nations as well. http://ir.l1id.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=462879

The standard for the digital facial image/photo on these “national/international” identification cards will the adopted international standard of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). Keep in mind that “bio” means body and “metric” means measurements. Measurements are done in numbers; you decide if biometrics is the number of man. We do not suggest that Real ID is the “Mark of the Beast” but it is likely the enrollment process leading up to what will be the “Mark of the Beast”. Once databases are compromised (experts agree databases are not fully secure) and identification documents are counterfeited (as they always have been) we will be told the identification process must move from the identification document to directly on the person. The technology already does exist to do this. http://www.nonaiswa.org/?p=498 SOMARK has devised both an invisible and visible RFID tattoo. In the article provided by the previous link, the use of the technology not just with animals but also human beings is referred to. Never before has the political will and the technology existed to enroll ALL people into a single global system of identification and financial control. Once in this system U.S. citizens will have no representation because the system is global and agencies such as the ICAO and the International Biometrics Agency will dictate “the rules”.

Why hasn’t Congress stepped in and stopped the sale of L-1 to foreign companies? I do not have answer. I know that I and many others are attempting to educate the public and lawmakers about the sale of L-1. There is still time to stop the sale. L-1 has announced they do not expect the sale to be finalized until spring of this year or later. I am asking that every citizen regardless of the political party affiliation contact both their state lawmakers and elected officials in Congress; once you may contact inform the elected leaders that you strongly oppose the sale of L-1 to foreign companies.

Another fair question to ask is, why DHS hasn’t stepped in and stopped the sale. After all, the placing of U.S. citizens personal and sensitive information including our SSN’s (social security numbers) and biometrics in the hands of people we have little or no jurisdiction over is a potential threat to our citizens and our country. I can answer this question; former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is representing the French company.

I also would like to know why Congress did not step in and stop the sale of Viisage’s/L-1’s facial recognition technology to a Chinese citizen. Viisage/L-1 knew the Chinese citizen was going to provide the technology to the “Red” Chinese government. The government wanted to use the technology to identify dissidents. Do we want to emulate China or do we want to be a beacon for freedom loving people? http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye

Now that a foundation has been laid let’s have a discussion about what Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and the Real ID Act 2005 have in common and what differentiates the two laws.

Arizona S.B.1070 is state initiated legislation signed into state law in 2010 and the Real ID Act 2005 is a federal law. Arizona’s S.B.1070 allows for an unlimited amount of personal information of citizens including a person’s biometrics (i.e. fingerprints, digital facial image/facial recognition and iris scan) to be shared and/or vetted with the federal government. S.B.1070 was and is a reaction to the federal government’s inability to deal with the illegal immigration issue. What is clear is that Arizona’s S.B.1070 assists the federal government in creating a national database/repository of citizen’s most personal and sensitive information under the control of the DHS. The Real ID Act 2005 relies on states to collect information that is subsequently available to the federal government through a variety of methods/means including but not limited to the 1994 Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, Fusion Centers, and the International Justice and Public Safety Network.

I will address the issue of whether Real ID creates a national ID card or more precisely an international identification card further into this document.

One reason among many that I am addressing S.B.1070 is many states are looking at introducing similar legislation. Regardless of where a person stands on “illegal immigration” or “undocumented workers” what is undeniable is the status quo is unacceptable.

Let’s begin with the actual wording of Arizona’s S.B.1070 and go from there since this exact wording or nearly exact wording is included in the proposed legislation of states wanting to address the same concerns Arizona’s lawmakers had and have. The following is an excerpt of S.B.1070:

“F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (including U.S., citizens) or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.”

I recognize that most citizens including myself want law enforcement to be able to determine a person’s citizenship after law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion to stop or detain an individual. I and the others that belong to the Constitutional Alliance support the brave men and women in law enforcement, our military, and are part of our intelligence community. What we oppose is the strategy of the “decision makers” of knowing every detail of our lives. ….

What I am opposed to is the sharing or allowing of access to every person’s personal information including a person’s biometric samples/data to DHS in order that that U.S. citizenship status can be determined. DNA is a biometric. Are you in favor or every citizen being required to submit their DNA to the government? If you do not believe it is the federal government’s intention to have direct electronic access to state DMV databases then think again. The FBI and North Carolina have already started a “pilot” program that provides the FBI direct access to North Carolina’s digital facial image/photo/biometric database. http://publicintelligence.info/fbi-delves-into-dmv-photos-in-search-for-fugitives/

I know there are those that believe we should have unbending trust in the FBI. Consider that the Inspector General of the Justice Department detailed the FBI’s abuse of NSL’s (National Security Letters). For years the FBI was issuing NSL’s to entities demanding those entities including corporations provide the personal information of citizens. NSL authority for the FBI was included as part of the Patriot Act. NSL’s DO NOT require a judge to sign a warrant. NSL’s are exempt from having to show “cause” to a judge. In one three year period alone the FBI issued 143,000 NSL’s. That averages out to well over 100 NSL’s issued a day! http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/nsl-abuse/ Just because we should be able to “trust” the FBI, DHS and other federal agencies and departments does not mean we should not inspect what we expect.

ABC News released an article in May, 2008 that should elevate any reasonable person’s concerns about DHS. The following is taken directly from the article:

“The Department of Homeland Security wants to set up a new program to illegally spy on Americans, two senior Democratic lawmakers charged Thursday in a letter urging colleagues to deny funds for the program. In a letter to three colleagues obtained by ABC News, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, Miss., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., voiced their objections to a new office DHS wants to create that would share detailed surveillance capabilities of military intelligence satellites and other satellites monitoring technology with state and local law enforcement.”

In March 2009, an internal memo of DHS, “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” was “leaked” that outlined the dozens of groups and organizations that are thought of as being representative of those on the “left” and “right” that are considered “potential” domestic terrorists. The list was so comprehensive that anti-war groups, environmentalists, evangelical Christians, second Amendment supporters, people who support third party candidates, supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, animal rights advocates and many others are named. http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

We have all witnessed horrible, tragic instances of individuals taking the lives of innocent people. Usually, there are warning signs that are apparent to friends, family, coworkers, congregation members and others that a person is experiencing “problems”. If we continue down the path of collecting all information of all people, those people that should stand out are lost in the haystack of information law enforcement is collecting.

There is a reason that our forefathers decided there must be a Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In section F (previously provided above) of Arizona’s S.B.1070 there is no limit or restrictions on what information the state can receive or share in order to determine a person’s citizenship status. If a citizen in Arizona was to apply for a marriage license, business license, a gun permit, a driver’s license, or any other type of license Arizona issues, the state of Arizona can collect whatever information it deems necessary to establish a person’s citizenship status. It is not only when a citizen applies for a “license” of any type but also when applying for any state benefit such as a applying for grant money, unemployment insurance or food stamps that an unspecified thus unlimited amount of information be collected and shared with federal agencies and departments including primarily DHS. I am not suggesting I favor those in our country illegally obtaining benefits. When you read the solution I provide a little further into this document you will find that I address how Arizona and other states can identify those in our country illegally.

There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The solution provided in this document is proof that there is more way to slice an apple. We do not have to surrender our Constitutional rights in order to address the real concerns of those in Arizona or any other states.

I know some of you will say “Wait a minute. Arizona is also collecting the information of those in our country illegally when they apply for any type of state license or benefit.” I would agree that Arizona’s law does assist in eliminating the likelihood that a non-citizen would obtain a state license or benefit. If I was to accept the thinking and reality of S.B.1070 I would have to accept that I have no issue with eliminating the rights of all citizens to identify non-citizens. I would also have to agree that the presumption of innocence is not important to spite the fact that the presumption of innocence is the foundation of our system of justice.

Let’s move on and discuss somewhat briefly the Real ID Act 2005 in order that we can get to a solution that addresses the concerns of those that support Arizona S.B.1070 and/or the Real ID Act.

First, the Real ID Act 2005 was signed into law in May 2005. The rulemaking process took roughly 2 ½ years to be completed. During that 2 ½ years literally over six hundred groups and organizations came out against the law for a variety of reasons. These groups covered a broad political spectrum from the far right to the far left. Religious organizations representing all major religions spoke out against the Real ID Act 2005.

Among the reasons for such overwhelming opposition was and is Real ID is an unfunded federal mandate, the federal government intervening in the issuance of state driver’s licenses, the unfettered power Real ID provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a variety of privacy concerns, First Amendment religious concerns of which many were by Christian evangelical ministries, the state driver’s license would become a de facto national identification card (actually international) and the requirement that each driver’s license applicant would provide biometric samples.

Contrary to what I and others would like to believe Real ID is not “dead”. There are efforts to “save” the monstrosity. With an implementation date roughly 100 days away I hope that each of us can understand the urgency in addressing the issues I speak of in this document.

Twenty-five states either as a result of law or resolution opposed the Real ID Act 2005.

There are states have been working towards meeting the 18 benchmarks while some have delayed or simply decided not to meet all the benchmarks. The benchmarks include some very commonsense security measures and other items that states were either already meeting or were/are moving towards on their own. Further the Real ID Act called for the creation of new databases and the linking of existing ones.

I will focus on the first benchmark which requires states to capture or take a digital facial image; a photograph. Most citizens have no problem with having a photo on a driver’s license and support photos in fact. Our organization does not have an issue with a photograph but we do have an issue when that photograph must be a high resolution, facial recognition compatible photograph meeting international standards such as the case with the Real ID Act 2005.

The following comes directly from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by DHS in March, 2007:

The ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations. It is the adopted standards of the ICAO that guarantees every U.S. citizen will be enrolled into a single global system of identification and financial control. DHS named another international organization as the “hub” and “backbone” for Real ID implementation. We, as citizens have no representation when it comes to international organizations. This “whole situation” has gotten so out of control that we now have an International Biometrics Agency. Julian Ashborn speaking as the Chairman of the International Biometric Agency said the following:

“What information do governments share? With whom is my data shared and why?” All of these questions need to be addressed by an agency with global powers”.

I cannot speak for other citizens but I am opposed to any agency that has global powers. We are supposedly living in a sovereign country or at least I believe we are.

One Possible Alternative Solution

A fundamental question that should being asked, and is not is, can the states have adequate proof of citizenship status without relying on the federal government? The answer is in almost all cases is a resounding “Yes”.

First, I do support the security measures states are taking to ensure they provide a driver’s license with document integrity; a secure driver’s license that would be difficult to counterfeit.

A citizen’s birth certificate is proof of citizenship. Currently three states, North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa have each “digitized” and authenticated the birth certificates they have and are issuing. Further, these same states are authenticating the birth certificates of driver’s license applicants even in those cases where the birth certificates originated outside of their respective states when those respective states have in fact digitized their birth certificates.

Eighteen other states have digitized their birth certificates but are waiting for ALL states to do so before participating in a system that would allow all states to authenticate birth certificates with one another. Seven additional states above and beyond the 21 have nearly completed the digitizing of birth records/birth certificates. The cost of achieving a 100% digitized birth certificates in all states and territories is estimated to be approximately $100 million (National Associate for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems).

The federal government realizes the birth certificate is the primary instrument that “proves” citizenship; this is precisely why the Real ID Act 2005 mandates all birth certificates will be authenticated.

Point of fact and information: In those instances where states collect the biometrics samples/data of driver’s license applicants; it is done AFTER the individual applying for the driver’s license has provided their breeder documents (documents needed to obtain a driver’s license, i.e. birth certificate). In the case of the 11 Russian spies, the collecting of their biometrics samples/data did nothing but validate a fraud when those Russian spies applied for and received state identification based on breeder documents (i.e. passports) that were counterfeit and/or fraudulently obtained.

Many, if not most citizens are not familiar with a state initiative named “EVVE” (Electronic Verification of Vital Events). It is critical/important that all citizens concerned about voting fraud, benefits being provided to the people in our country illegally, terrorists using a state driver’s license to facilitate a terrorist activity and identity theft are knowledgeable about EVVE. The following is taken directly from the National Associate for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems:

“Many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates for proof of age, proof of citizenship, identification for employment purposes, to issue benefits or other documents (e.g. driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and passports) and to assist in determining eligibility for public programs or benefits.

The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) has developed and implemented an electronic system that allows immediate confirmation of the information on a birth certificate presented by an applicant to a government office anywhere in the nation irrespective of the place or date of issuance. Authorized Federal and State agency users via a single interface can generate an electronic query to any participating vital records jurisdiction throughout the country to verify the contents of a paper birth certificate or to request an electronic certification (in lieu of the paper birth certificate). An electronic response from the participating vital records jurisdiction either verifies or denies the match with official state or jurisdiction records. It will also flag positive responses where the person matched is now deceased. As designed, queries can be generated and matched against 250 million birth records in jurisdiction vital record databases nationwide. The EVVE system is also capable of supporting the electronic verification and/or electronic certification of death records.”

Our organization, the Constitutional Alliance www.constitutionalalliance.org conditionally supports EVVE. We are working with state lawmakers to ascertain exactly what information is collected, retained and shared and with whom the information is shared. Our proposed solution to address identity theft, illegal immigration, voting fraud and the use of driver’s licenses by terrorists to facilitate terrorist acts includes what EVVE does. Our solution goes one step further than EVVE.

The Stop Real ID Coalition which is a “sister” organization of the Constitutional Alliance (Not for profit 501 (c) (3)) has proposed that all states sequentially number all birth certificates that they have and are digitizing. The purpose for numbering the birth certificates is to have the EVVE “system” send an alert to the requesting state DMV (Department of Motor Vehicle) office if a birth certificate that was previously authenticated is attempted to be used again to acquire a state driver’s license or state identification card for those that do not drive. This would prevent people from using another person’s birth certificate.

The system would show John Doe used his rightful birth certificate to obtain his driver’s license or state identification card.

If another person attempted to use John Doe’s birth certificate “the system” would recognize that the specific birth certificate in question had already been used to acquire a state driver’s license based on the number assigned to and on John Doe’s birth certificate.

If John Doe attempted to use his birth certificate to obtain multiple driver’s licenses in different states “the system” would alert DMV officials that John Doe had already used his birth certificate in Kentucky for example and thus John Doe would not receive a driver’s license or state identification card from another state or jurisdiction until John Doe had turned in his Kentucky driver’s license or state identification card.

If John Doe says his driver’s license or state identification card was or is lost then John Doe would have to sign an affidavit to that effect under penalty of law if in fact John Doe is lying.

Finally, in order to eliminate the problem of states using the same numbering sequence, each state or territory would start their numbering sequence with their two letter state or territory abbreviation.

One question that is asked is what happens if someone was to use John Doe’s birth certificate to obtain a state driver’s license or identification card before John Doe does? The reality is it would take law enforcement “minutes” in most cases to ascertain who is the actually the John Doe the birth certificate belongs to. One John Doe would have a multitude of other “documents” and the availability of providing numerous affidavits from family and other people; the other John Doe would not. The height, weight, color of eyes and hair and so forth could also prove instantaneously who is committing fraud. All states have an appeal process if a person is wrongly denied a state driver’s license. In the worst case scenario however extremely rare that it might be, a person would have the ability to use the appeals process to acquire their stare driver’s license or identification card.

We recognize that not all citizens are born in the United States. In those instances the federal government would have to be queried about the citizenship status of a person. It would be the federal government’s responsibility to ensure a person who becomes a naturalized citizen is fact who they claim to be before granting citizenship status to the person. The states would query federal databases to ensure what documents the individual presents to DMV employees when applying for a state driver’s license or identification card are authentic. In those cases where a person from another country is granted a “visa” the process would be the same. Before that person is provided a state driver’s license that person would have their documents presented to DMV including but not limited to their visa authenticated by the federal government. The expiration date of the driver’s license of those in the United States on a visa would be the expiration date of the visa.

In a country of over 300 million people there will be cases where states do not have the birth certificates, certificates of birth or other acceptable documents as the state may deem appropriate to authenticate before issuing a state driver’s license or state identification card to an individual. The states would deem what procedures they would follow in these very rare cases that the person applying for a state driver’s license or state identification card is not able to have their birth certificate, certificate of birth or other acceptable documents authenticated. Hospital records and insurance documents are secondary documents that we envision a state may use along with other documents.

It cannot be overstated that it is the states that control the issuing of a state driver’s license and state identification card. Equally true is it is the states the control the issuance of birth certificates. EVVE is a state initiative. It is only when states have no other choice but to require the cooperation of DHS that DHS should be provided a citizen’s personal information including their biometrics before issuing a state identification document.

In addition to EEVE our alternative proposed solution to Real ID and Arizona S.B.1070 includes verifying a person’s Social Security Number. This can be done directly by sates querying the Social Security Administration (not DHS). This is not an open ended exchange of a person’s personal information.

Our proposed solution and alternative to Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act keeps from feeding the federal government’s addiction for our personal information including biometrics. Once a state issues a person a state driver’s license that person has proof of citizenship not just by their birth certificate but also by their state driver’s license or state identification card. Although I am not “thrilled” with the idea of U.S. citizens having to obtain a state driver’s license or state identification card I do accept a certain “reality” does exist.

By adopting our solution states can eliminate placing a burden on business owners (comply with E-Verify, which means the business registering with DHS). The employer in our proposed solution would ask for an applicant’ driver’s license or state identification card.

Arizona S.B.1070 and similar legislation being proposed in some states allows for an unlimited amount of information to be sent at ongoing intervals depending on when a person applies for any type of license (driver’s, business, gun, marriage, professional) or benefit (food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid) to the Department of Homeland Security.

Under our proposed solution once a citizen receives a state driver’s license or state identification card that person would no longer have to have any information shared with DHS or any other federal agency or department in order to obtain any state benefit or any other type of state license such as a business license, marriage license or gun license.

Conclusion

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. – Abraham Lincoln

The issues I have raised and responded to in this document go to a much bigger question. Are we going to allow our country to exist as a “surveillance society”? A surveillance society and a free society cannot be reconciled.

Is there reason to believe we should be questioning the trust we have in the technologies being used, the companies that provide that technology and the government with the use of those same technologies and laws? I am not talking about the men and women in law enforcement, our military and intelligence community. I am referring to those that make policy making decisions that others follow. I have provided a great deal of documented information. Are my concerns justified?

In 2001, fans who attended the Super Bowl had their facial images captured and then compared to facial images in law enforcement databases. Viisage Technology, now known as L-1 Identity Solutions after a merger with Identix, provided the technology to identify the fans who attended the game. After the game, Viisage reported many successes; the arresting of people as a result of the cameras and facial recognition technology. The reality, as The St. Petersburg Times reported on Feb. 16, 2001, is that not one arrest was made as a direct result of using Viisage’s Technology. Critics have dubbed the Super Bowl as the “snooper bowl.” Grayson Barber equates what Viisage and law enforcement did as putting the public on the wrong side of a one-way mirror. Fans were not told about the cameras or the use of facial recognition technology. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41571

Since 2001, citizens have been on the wrong side of the mirror many times as the use of facial-recognition technology has exploded. The camera is pointed at you!

In addition to laws such as Arizona S.B.1070 and the Real ID Act other laws and thus technologies are being implemented or considered. Senator Lieberman has proposed a biometric social security card and Senator Schumer has proposed a “National Worker’s Identification Card”. This goes to the issue of the use of RFID technology. RFID chips have already been compromised but that does not stop those that continue to support the use of RFID chips. There are also real health issues that have been raised over the use of RFID chips.

If we continue to pass laws that dictate the use of certain technologies, we will have created a surveillance society with no opportunity to undo the harm we will have done. The who, what, how, when, and where of everything we have done or do will be at the disposal of the government. We will be literally providing a digital/electronic footprint 24/7.

Many people are concerned about our national debt and the budget deficit. The burden of our debt is being passed onto our children. It is bad enough that we are passing on the debt. Shouldn’t we at least be making sure our children and grandchildren have the “freedom” to deal with our failures? Do you really believe they will have that “freedom” while being in the spider’s web of a surveillance society?

The Stop Real ID Coalition has provided the Constitutional Alliance with proposed legislation for every state. One piece of legislation protects the rights of all citizens in a state. The other piece is referred to a “fallback” legislation in the event the legislation that would apply to all citizens does not get the necessary votes to pass. The “fallback” legislation is the “Biometric, SSN, Religious Exemption Act” that would allow Christians to be exempt from being forced into a system they believe God condemns.

The Constitutional Alliance offers the legislation to educate citizens about what their choices are. The Stop Real ID Coalition can be contacted either directly at www.stoprealidcoalition.com or by contacting the Constitutional Alliance.

For those interested in the legislation you can visit the Constitutional Alliance web-site and use the “contact” option. Just makes sure you provide your contact information and specify what you would like. With both pieces of legislation comes the “talking points” and additional information.

We must do better and never accept that we are not able to do so. Failure is not an option. Are you going to be the type of person who gives the alcoholic another drink?